Chargers' site search entering terminal stage

The conceptual art shows a football stadium tucked unobtrusively in the northeast corner of an enormous bayfront platform, a project so stupendous that the cruise ships depicted at anchor could be bathtub toys.
A new home for the Chargers or an unpublished excerpt from Sam Coleridge's opium dream? Xanadu or Xanadon't? Come November, you make the call.
In denying the Port of San Diego's request for an immediate stay, the Fourth District Court of Appeal Wednesday removed the last obstacle to a public vote on a massive waterfront makeover at the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal.
What that means depends on where you sit.
“I can't read all of the tea leaves,” proponent Frank Gallagher said Wednesday, “but I do know this: It could be a solution for the Chargers.”
Yet ...
“The idea of the Chargers or any type of sports stadium being located on the Marine terminal is based on at least a dozen hypotheticals,” said Lani Lutar, vice president of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. “It's pie in the sky.”
And ...
“Even if it passes – and the (California State) lands commission is going to come after this in nanoseconds – it will be tied up in court for a long, long time,” predicted UCSD professor Steve Erie.
Still ...
“If the voters approve it, it probably has to go forward,” City Attorney Mike Aguirre said. “Whatever the voters decide to do, I will do.”
Though the Chargers have yet to publicly endorse the clunkily named “Port of San Diego Marine Freight Preservation and Bayfront Redevelopment Initiative,” Aguirre's stated neutrality could be a critical consideration. One of the reasons the team claims to have cast its covetous eyes on Chula Vista is the purported difficulty of dealing with the city of San Diego so long as Aguirre is in office.
Should the election eliminate either Aguirre himself or his potential objections, it could signal a significant break in the city's stadium stalemate. Yet even with both sides' polling showing voters in favor of the initiative with less than two months of campaigning left, the hurdles are both high and numerous.
Those hurdles include engineering, earthquake and environmental issues, military concerns, jurisdiction questions, a curious coalition of political opposition and a lengthy list of potential litigation. Asked if he expected to live long enough to see his project completed, 66-year-old developer Richard Chase acknowledged: “It will be close. But my children will see it.”
What Chase would have them see is nearly 100 acres of hotels, shopping, entertainment and/or football elevated 40 feet above a modernized Marine Terminal. What Port officials fear is that the elevation promised in the proposal is a ruse; that the developers are misleading the public through a tightly worded initiative that could imperil or eliminate the terminal and lead to cheaper ground-level construction.
“The board of port commissioners believe it is deceptive and would hurt maritime as a whole,” said Irene McCormack, a spokesman for the San Diego Unified Port District.
“It's a very complicated place to put anything. Any time you put anything along the water, it takes a lot longer to get it done. . . . When you build a double deck, how does maritime exist while you're building it?”
Gallagher claims the Marine Terminal operation is already “in cardiac arrest,” that the amount of tonnage unloaded has slipped 55 percent over the past three years. McCormack did not dispute that number, but said her figures reflect the port district as a whole (including National City) and show an increase.
The larger issue, though, is intent. The port and the chamber suspect the developers are trying to appropriate lucrative public land for their own enrichment. Chase and Gallagher insist their vision includes a commitment to preserving the terminal and protecting the jobs of dockworkers.
“The plan we have is to accommodate them, not to run them off,” Gallagher said. “These longshoremen have had jobs there for generations. I look at that as a sacred obligation we have to the longshoremen. Those jobs are sacrosanct.”
Both sides agree that the depth of the bay would make the Marine Terminal difficult to replicate in National City or other sites. While unloading cargo would not seem the wisest use of prime real estate, there are only so many spots that can service the larger ships.
While communicating the complexities of the issue will be a challenge for all concerned, gauging the Chargers' interest ought to be easy. Absent any sign of palpable progress in Chula Vista, or attractive alternatives in other markets, Team Spanos is bound to embrace any stadium idea that shows traction.
Should the 10th Avenue initiative succeed, the Chargers can be expected to try to wield their lease as leverage. They would likely offer to vacate the Qualcomm Stadium site, and unlock its development potential for the city, in exchange for downtown construction subsidies.
“We're obviously highly interested in the process leading up to the vote,” said Chargers spokesman Mark Fabiani. “But our focus remains on Chula Vista and will remain in Chula Vista.”
At least until Nov. 4.

I tossed this idea around work with a few of our civil engineers. On the surface, with very little info, they all thought it sounded EXTREMELY difficult to pull off. I'm quite skeptical of this alternative. Seems to me that this will raise even more issues & resistance than trying to get the power plant removed to free up the CV site. :icon_shrug:

I don't understand why if the Port Comission is so concerned with the "hidden agenda" they don't work collaboratively with the proponents of this plan to put in wording that would safeguard the jobs and maritime industry at the 10th street port? Why fight the entire idea instead of working together to make it happen? This could be a huge win-win for all but instead they're just fighting it.

“The board of port commissioners believe it is deceptive and would hurt maritime as a whole,” said Irene McCormack, a spokesman for the San Diego Unified Port District. “It's a very complicated place to put anything. Any time you put anything along the water, it takes a lot longer to get it done. . . . When you build a double deck, how does maritime exist while you're building it?”

You figure it out! Make a plan! How does CalTrans expand bridges and freeways that are used everyday by millions of commuters? How does an airport get expanded while still operating? Big projects like this happen all the time, is it complicated? Sure. Is it impossible? No way. The fact is that the Port is not being used properly and this plan can help make it better, create more jobs and additional revenue for the City as a whole. If soem of the logistics need to be amended - so be it - but why fight something with such potential for a positive impact when you can work cooperatively to make it reality?

I tossed this idea around work with a few of our civil engineers. On the surface, with very little info, they all thought it sounded EXTREMELY difficult to pull off. I'm quite skeptical of this alternative. Seems to me that this will raise even more issues & resistance than trying to get the power plant removed to free up the CV site. :icon_shrug:

Click to expand...

I've raised these issues before. This project will be hip deep in lawsuits even before the first plans are filed. Once those are filed there will be another myriad of suits over the details and impacts of the plans that HAVE been filed, then more legal wrangles over the changes. Then will come the inevitable construction delays, cost over runs, unforeseen technical and architectural difficulties, subcontractor work failures and bankruptcies, financing problems(particularly at this point in time) and design changes as the projects move forward. This project, at first blush, actually looks more challenging than the one for a floating airport out beyond Pt. Loma.

An appeals court has cleared the way for a November vote on whether to build a 40-foot platform over a cargo terminal - a site that could hold hotels or a new stadium for the San Diego Chargers.
California's 4th District Court of Appeal did not give a reason in its ruling Wednesday for denying the San Diego Unified Port District appeal that was filed following a losing bid last week to have the initiative removed from the Nov. 4 ballot.
Port district spokesman said the agency had exhausted its legal options.
The Port District contends the plan to allow a stadium or hotel on a 40-foot deck could jeopardize 42,000 jobs and hurt an $8 billion economy that flows from the terminal to the city.
Developers Richard Chase and Frank Gallagher, who back the measure, said voters have a right to decide the issue at the polls. The two men headed up an effort to gather more than 34,000 signatures to place it on the November ballot.
If the measure passes, any number of development projects - from a hotel to a new stadium - could be built on the deck, the developers have said.
An attorney for the San Diego Chargers, Mark Fabiani, said last month that the team would be interested in the outcome of the vote. However, the Chargers are exploring a site for a new stadium in Chula Vista. Port officials argue the initiative violates state law that gives the Port Commission jurisdiction over development at the terminal, located on state tidelands.